A new thread might be good for that Mark, the subject here is specifically groundfighting in kata, and more specifically the historical existence and content of submission grappling trained alongside Karate.

It's been like 6 different threads, all very contentious so if you want strictly application discussion i'd start a new thread.

Quote:Well if people with our ground fighting experience can't "see" something that ppl say is there, then its probably not. Thats what I was getting at.

I agree,but with good imigination I can see certain things and how they could be trained as groundfighting. You could potentially see many BJJ techniques and train them that way. My point is that there is no proof that they "were always there." Not one single shred, not one iota, not one nano of a hint of a clue.

go ahead with your study though, it might be interesting.

_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<

arguing historical references are for the forum...arguing actual technique is for the mat.

Actually I thought discussing technical aspects of forms and application was for this particular board. And that's what I do, but all you guys want to do is discuss history. Interesting. I personally post here do discuss actual technique. The dojo is for physical practice. Where I am from we discuss with action on the "deck."

Quote:so, in effect you are displayling that since you can't win a debate of logic and historical facts, then you resort to "proving" your historical correctness on the mat.

Ed, its about showing people how the principles translate in different positions. I guess demonstrating application and explaining why things are the way they are is a foreign concept to you. I'm not sure what the reaction is about. Bad day at work I guess.

Quote:thats laughably transparant and is eqivalent to proving a technique on the mat, by telling your sparring partner to turn to "Nagamine's book Tale's of Okinawa's Great Masters page 138."

That's odd. I really don't know anyone who trains like that.

Quote:you may have H.S. varsity wrestling in your Karate on the mat, but you have no historical argument on a forum.

See Ed, this statement shows how little you are actually getting of what I am saying. Wrestling is simply supplementary training. I teaches you how to move, use leverage, throw people around, etc. In other words it teaches you how to grapple. Just like as little children we learn to walk and develop that ability over the course of our lives. Then when we train in karate that walking is altered and we learn ways to move effectively. We use the same with any physical training or physical attribute we develop. We use all of these in our karate training.

Oh, and I do notice the sarcasim in your posts. But I believe the facts are that there is a connection between the okinawan grappling arts and karate. The extent of which no one has established. You are so busy trying to validate yourself by tearing down others, what exactly is your stance on this issue? Because the history as we have already agreed is so slim that there is no definitive way of proving either side. However, my own viewpoint and stance on the issue has not changed.

Happy training Ed. You have successfully proved that you are a true karate scholar and historian.

Quote:Credibility where? Here? On this board? With you guys? And how does that exactly affect me? The fact of the matter is you guys don't believe what I say anyway. Either you don't think my training and fighting is any good

*lassos med, and drags him back to the topic*

See, statements like that are the problem. You have totally, 100% changed the question from "Do we believe med about the historical connections between kata and groundfighting" to "Do we think med's training is bad".

The overall opinion seems to be that the historical connections you have put forth are not substantial enough to make your case. This does not mean that anyone thinks you are stupid or inferior, etc. It just mean we disagree about that point.

Your training sounds good, although video would be nice.

So quit trying to change the subject.

Matt, completing the quote would be nice. Trying to prove your point by posting a portion of my post and only posting one half of the last sentence. Where is Ed and the dishonesty police when you need him? Nice. Actually that quote was in regard to my credibility. Maybe where you are from karate credibility is only about research, but questioning my credibility is about my ability. Ultimately belts are only good in the dojo and all this theory and historical references are for the written word, but credibility in karate is about what you can do. Maybe where you are from it is not, but we are from different worlds, aren't we?

Quote:so am I to understand you've only ever been debating the issue of historical connections to kata and groundfighting, from the perspective of what you can show on the mat?

My arguements have come from my training and physical study. In my reading of Nagamine's books these are the things that stuck out. You guys asked for references and I cited Nagamine's writings.

Quote:you don't see the disconnect of logic there?

I havene't been debating the historical connection but simply stating what Nagamine writes. If what I cite is not enough to convince you, that really has nothing to do with me. If I was debating anything it was how the actual techniques in kata translate. So no, no disconnect of logic.

Quote:and if that's true, then why do you reference page numbers from a book and cite quotes whenever asked for the historical connection? Aren't you being hypocritical?

Well, no because people ask the question so I answer. How is that hypocritical. If I know of a historical connection between what I do and the okinawans, why should I not state it? Even when that connection does not drive my training does that mean I should not put out there what I know?

thats what I thought. well, using that logic, then the opposite is also true: If someone's training did not include groundfighting, then there is no historical connection to kata and groundfighting. The evidence being what is not displayed on the mat along with all the books which do not mention a connection.

. But I believe the facts are that there is a connection between the okinawan grappling arts and karate.

I also believe there is a connection between the Okinawan grappling arts.karate.Okinawan dance in all of its forms including the dances imported from China.Earlier Okinawan weapons.Early farming toolsAnd most things found in some of the Okinawan's life styles both past and present.

Quote:

Because the history as we have already agreed is so slim that there is no definitive way of proving either side.